The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that once an employee was placed in the executive cadre, he would cease to be a workman, disentitling him to benefits accruing from a settlement arrived between the management and trade union of which he was a member prior to promotion.

The judgment by a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph put a stamp of approval on the decision of Air India to give equal promotional avenue to air hostesses and male flight pursers after their promotion to executive cadre despite an agreement in 1997 to treat male flight pursers as a separate cadre.

Dismissing petitions filed by Air India Cabin Crew Association and others, the bench said what Air India did was to iron out the differences on account of revised promotion policy, which exempted from the ambit of settlement between the management and trade union some of the workmen who had been promoted to the executive cadre.

Justice Kabir, writing the judgment for the bench, said the earlier rulings of the apex court on this issue were in the context of bringing parity between the cadre of in-flight supervisors and the cadre of air hostesses. "It is in fact the prerogative of the management to place an employee in a position where he would be able to contribute the most to the company," the bench said.

So irrespective of earlier judgments, Air India was at liberty to adopt the revised promotion policy which was intended to benefit all employees, the bench said.

The association had argued that once an employee was covered under the settlement, he would continue to be governed by the settlement despite his promotion to executive cadre.

The apex court rejected the plea and said, "In our view, once an employee is placed in the executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and also ceases to be governed by settlements arrived at between the management and the workmen through the concerned trade union."

It added, "It is not a question of an attempt made by such employees to wriggle out of the settlements which had been arrived at prior to their elevation to the executive cadre, which, by operation of law, ceases to have any binding force on the employees so promoted by the management."

The bench did not agree with the petitioner's argument that duties discharged by in-flight supervisors indicated that it was a separate post. It accepted additional solicitor general Gaurab Banerjee's arguments that the duties discharged by persons designated as in-flight supervisors did not create a separate post and the post remained that of in-flight pursers. (Dhananjay Mahapatra, Times of India)